From ...
Path: archiver1.google.com!newsfeed.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!npeer.kpnqwest.net!nreader1.kpnqwest.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Macro-writing in CL
References: <3b114bf4.748963843@nntp.interaccess.com> <3198932240187159@naggum.net> <3B01E018.E4E98123@home.com> <9fl2hm$4mfh2$1@ID-63952.news.dfncis.de> <87g0ddzv3r.fsf_-_@orion.bln.pmsf.de> <9fnf97$52id2$1@ID-63952.news.dfncis.de> <3200908738061425@naggum.net> <9fo442$53sri$1@ID-63952.news.dfncis.de> <9fo4u3$mon$1@news3.cadvision.com> <9fua6j$sjo$1@news3.cadvision.com> <1fce7ff3.0106100246.60029962@posting.google.com>
Mail-Copies-To: never
From: Erik Naggum
Message-ID: <3201177967847260@naggum.net>
Organization: Naggum Software, Oslo, Norway
Lines: 119
User-Agent: Gnus/5.0808 (Gnus v5.8.8) Emacs/20.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:06:12 GMT
X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@Norway.EU.net
X-Trace: nreader1.kpnqwest.net 992189172 193.71.66.150 (Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:06:12 MET DST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:06:12 MET DST
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:11614
* f_o_o_@hushmail.com (f_o_o_)
> In <3200870443762452@naggum.net> it was E that was provoking -
> strange, having such an uncalled for attack with all that fuss over
> the "fighting the system" phrase, just because E had previous judgement
> over B - when he accuses most people of doing this to him.
Dear Anonymous Idiot,
You do not know that I had any previous "judgment over "Biap"". This is
something you invent out of your very own hostility towards me, and it
shows that you are indeed the prototypical anonymous idiot on theh Net.
Anybody who hides behind a useless identification of the person has shown
the world that he thinks the world would treat him harsher if they knew
who he was. We have to trust that judgment and keep anonymous idiots to
much higher standards than people who identify themselves and show the
world that they accept personal responsibility for their mistakes and
erros. An anonymous idiot can become _another_ anonymous idiot when he
has run out of goodwill. This is why idiots prefer to be anonymous.
Therefore, there is no previous judgment, there is a _requirement_ of a
person who posts anonymously _not_ to be an idiot. Any shred of idiocy
from an anonymous poster is prima facie evidence of destructiveness, the
criminal mind, trolling, what have you. Otherwise, the anonymous poster
would have been a _responsible_ person.
Any one of us might want to be anonymous in some circumstance or another,
but then we realize that we start of with negative goodwill. People will
wonder why we need to be anonymous. It may not be perceived to be anyone
else's business by the anonymous poster, but it _is_ a valid question.
If an anonymous poster turns out to be disrespectful, everobyd _knows_
the reason they need to be anonymous: They are destructive bastards who
are trying to get away with it by being anonymous.
Being anonymous has its costs. Some of those who want to be anonymous
are _exactly_ the "rebel nature" that defy rules just to defy them.
There is no _point_ to their rebellion other than that they do not like
that other people set the rules. _They_ want to set the rules. And what
do you kno? "Biap" has shown us that he wants to set the rules, too.
What a huge surprise that is to those who think through things in general.
> Oh god...if you just pull your tongue out of E's ass for a couple of
> minutes you might think better.
This, for instance, is why you need to be anonymous. And now is a good
time for you to change your anonymous identification to something else.
> The damage he does for Lisp is far beyond his technical "contributions"
Then again, maybe you are a little less anonymous than one might think.
The people who have produces similar diarrhea here have not found an
audience worth having, so there is no wonder you hide behind a stupid
anonymous identification.
> only if for this killing of anyone that dares saying something bad on CL
This is the ususl problem with you morons. You think that disagreement
is the issue. You think that it is the insanely retarded attitude _you_
have towards things in general that also motivates other people. It is
not. I may have to repeat that: Other people do not have the retarded
reasons for their arguments that you would have had if you had tried to
argue similarly. People who have a serious understanding of any issue
can say whatever they want, bad, good, neutral, and people listen to them
because those who listen can destill useful information to their own
needs. _Everybody_ has a form of communication that is disagreeable to
some people if they have anything worth saying at all. If everybody
agrees with you, you are only being nice without saying anything at all.
This is the favorite mode of communication among idiots. Just watch
them. Extremely contentless polite exchanges of meaningless sounds that
are forgotten before the sound waves have vanished. Meaningful discourse
among intelligent people _necessarily_ means that somebody favorite idea
gets trashed. The measure of an intelligent response is that it puts its
personal prestige behind having good ideas, not that whatever ideas it
had have to be good. Some people, mostly those married to their ideas,
cannot tolerate that they turn out to be wrong, and fight those who make
that obvious.
It is important to notice whether people defend what they have or seek to
adopt what they find. Those who defend _themselves_ because they confuse
themselves with what they have, are useless in any discussion. They need
to be identified and weeded out. If you want to take part in a useful
discussion, you should expect to learn something and leave richer than
when you entered. If you defend and keep an idea that turns out to be
bad, you leave poorer than when you entered. Do not defend yourself. Do
not defend your idea. Defend how you came to conclude what you did, so
that others can examine and criticize that. Everybody makes mistakes in
identifying what they observe, but if they cannot distinguish between
what they observe and what they conclude it was they observed, then there
is no hope at all of correcting their mistakes, because they cannot make
_another_ conclusion from the same observation. People who are _unable_
to do that should just be kept out of public fora, or forced to get out
if they refuse to take a few hundred hints.
> - other people are open to hearing about good things from others while E
> is so focused around he's speeches about smart people not locking on a
> single way of thinking that he is completely unaware of anything and
> anyone except for himself.
Next time you feel the urge to post your incredibly intelligent thoughts
on someone's thinking process, try someone you know. Perhaps yourself,
but I do get the impression that you know yourself even less than me.
> Just Get a Fucking Life.
I must assume you have followed that advice yourself, but it is rather
tragic what you made out of it. Are you sure you are in a position to
give this advice to others at all?
You are of course welcome to continue to post your diarrhetic wastes here
if this is what your understanding of "a Fucking Life" requires you to
do, but you should realize that other people have other goals and means
than you do. For instance, you should use your computer to play games
that require motor skills instead of intelligence games like USENET.
If you _should_ want to try to post again, just get a fucking _name_.
#:Erik
--
Travel is a meat thing.